We know that mutual trust and respect between police and the communities they serve are critical to effective law enforcement, as public distrust of police impedes their efforts to control crime. A single officer-involved shooting, even if the officer’s actions were deemed to be justified or consistent with department policy, has the potential to shake the public’s confidence in the police; several shootings, especially of persons of color, can rock its very foundation.

Civilian oversight works to increase public trust and confidence in the police. By conducting independent reviews and audits of police policies, training, tactics, and management and supervision practices, and by ensuring that investigations of police misconduct or uses of force are handled fairly and objectively, oversight helps a community to trust that issues are resolved in a way that maximizes the public interest. This trust translates to higher confidence in a police force, and greater cooperation in a department’s efforts to prevent and solve crimes.

Through this expanded focus — beyond individual misconduct complaints or officer discipline — oversight helps to ensure that police officers in communities across the country have the proper tools, guidance and training to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities safely and in accordance with individuals’ constitutional rights.

In Pasadena, the question is not whether to establish civilian oversight of the PPD. The City Council, through the Public Safety Committee, oversees police Chief Phillip Sanchez and his department. Rather, the question Pasadena has to ask itself is, is the Public Safety Committee’s current level of oversight sufficient?

The answer seems obvious: No. The Public Safety Committee needs full-time staff — in the form of an independent police auditor or police monitor, as has been put forward by several stakeholder groups — to fully carry out its oversight responsibilities. As elected officials, members of the City Council and the Public Safety Committee are busy running a city of nearly 140,000 people, with a budget of $678 million. They simply do not have the time necessary to perform effective oversight of the PPD. The result is a chief who has little expectation of being held accountable for his decisions. The most recent example is his decision to outsource officer-involved shooting investigations to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, a decision that was made without input from the Public Safety Committee, at least not publicly, or the community. Arguably, police shootings can result in some of law enforcement’s most challenging and complex investigations. Yet the chief decided, apparently on his own, that these critical investigations will be conducted outside of his own agency, a decision not without controversy.

An independent police auditor or monitor, which is a model of oversight currently being considered by the Coalition for Increased Civilian Oversight of the Pasadena Police, would engage in long-term, concerted outreach, communicate and cooperate with community and civic leaders before and after major incidents, and assure the public that internal police investigations have been or will be done fairly, thoroughly and objectively. Moreover, the police auditor or monitor would act as the “eyes and ears” of the Public Safety Committee and report on whether the public interest is being considered or reflected in the Police Department’s policies and programs. Chief Sanchez is a professional, proactive police chief. In this case he does not seem to appreciate the depth and breadth of the community’s demand for civilian oversight. I strongly urge Pasadena leaders to do their part and adopt increased oversight of the PPD.

Advertisement

These issues will be discussed at a public forum on Tuesday at 7 p.m. at the Neighborhood Church, 301 N. Orange Grove Blvd., Pasadena.

Brian Buchner is president of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.